EB Academic Staff EB Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE BARGAINING GROUP 2:00PM - 5:00PM, THURSDAY 5 APRIL 2000 CONFERENCE ROOM, TC LAMBLE BUILDING Present: Graeme Dennehy, Executive Director, Business &Administration Professor Ingrid Moses, Vice Chancellor Brian Stoddart, PVC (Research & External) Alison Sheridan, NTEU Representative Sue Johnston, Director, TLC Jenny McParlane, NTEU Representative Chris Serow, Manager, IR & WC Steven Thiele, NTEU Representative Rod Gerber, Dean, FEHPS Adrian Ryan (NTEU State Secretary) Chris Burrell, IR Officer and Academic EB Secretary Meeting opened at 2:05 pm Brian Stoddart took the role of chair ITEM 1: APOLOGIES Mary Notestine, NTEU Representative ITEM 2: VICE CHANCELLORS ADDRESS Brian Stoddart opened the meeting and welcomed the Vice Chancellor, Professor Moses, to the bargaining table. The Vice Chancellor opened by reiterating her view expressed in October 1999 regarding the bargaining process and the need of the groups to work together and uphold the University's values. The Vice Chancellor commented that the University have made no abmit claims during the bargaining process and have put forward proposals which it believed to be true. The Vice Chancellor outlined that the current management inherited the financial problems which the University is faced with, however, the original claim of 6% unconditional and 4% conditional was a true and fair offer based on the University's financial position and after considering much analysis. The NTEU rejected this claim, so the University undertook further analysis and a further offer of 7% unconditional and 3% conditional was made to the NTEU. The Vice Chancellor informed the NTEU that the University had to reconsider the whole lot and that she had asked Graeme Dennehy to reconsider further options and where funding would come from. The Vice Chancellor advised that the information requested and prepared by Graeme Dennehy went before the Building and Grounds and Finance committee meetings last week. The Vice Chancellor stressed during these meetings that she was not prepared to cut academic programs or staffing. The Vice Chancellor acknowledged that the University believed there would be no need to cut into those areas if the salary increases stayed at 6 or 7 percent. At those council meetings, the council members were not willing to tolerate any of the cuts where we have legal obligations and liabilities. The Vice Chancellor highlighted that the University's huge maintenance bill was as a result of delaying maintenance in order to pay past salary increases. Whilst the University acknowledges that it can not reach all requirements at once, it is important to have a plan to address such outstanding matters. The Vice Chancellor expressed the need for the NTEU to understand that the University's offer had been a package of salary and conditions. With the salary component rejected we need to have a complete review of all matters that have been negotiated so far, including the dates for salary increases, in order to identify efficiency gains and optimal conditions for future income generation which would enable us to fund further salary increases. The Vice Chancellor outlined the need for the University to have greater flexibility and be able to change very fast to meet needs. The Vice Chancellor also expressed concern regarding the financial analysis document produced by Ian Eddie and that the document provided no ideas as to where the money would come from, only that our cash flow can afford it - which in itself is not a true representation of the figures. The Vice Chancellor expressed that the main priorities of the University are academic and there is a need to ensure academic programs are adequately resourced and supported. The Vice Chancellor stated that many of the points in Ian Eddies document need to be challenged. The Vice Chancellor also stated that if the parties were going to discuss higher salaries, then something else has to give - these being conditions and jobs. The Vice Chancellor commented that the targets within the University's offer are realistic targets and that the University hope to achieve them, however, the University needs the flexibility to help achieve them. The Vice Chancellor advised that Executive Director would need to look again at what can be saved. The Vice Chancellor strongly expressed that the University does not want to cut academic programs, however, if there is nothing else to give, then there will be a need for cuts in academic programs. Need to find efficiency gains in areas such as the christmas break, superannuation, managing change, redundancy. The NTEU questioned whether this meant that negotiations would go back to square one. The Vice Chancellor acknowledge that this was the case and highlighted the point that the University offered a whole package, and the NTEU have made it clear that the package has been rejected. The Vice Chancellor noted that whatever the University decides has to be sold to the NTEU national executive, to staff and to UNE Council. The University stated that it has been made absolutely clear in that there would be a mini budget once we agreed a salary increase and that it was misleading of the NTEU to say the University does not value its staff. The NTEU questioned if the University was saying that the University is looking at a reworking of the salary offer, but, anything above current offer of 7% and 3% is going to bring the parties back to a total re look of the conditions of enterprise bargaining. The University advised that this was the case. The NTEU questioned when the relevant financial information would be made available. The University advised that a model on the impact of 8%, 9%, and 10% was being developed. The NTEU questioned whether this matter meant that salary funding was tied to the conditions agreed already during the EB process. The University advised that it was important that the conditions negotiated would need to provide flexibility for the University if more money was to be found for salaries. The NTEU sought clarification on whether the parties would still be trying to reach an agreement on salaries by the 19 May. The University advised that this would not be feasible given. The NTEU questioned the University on what steps where being taken to find where the additional money can come from. The University advised that the Executive Director and Dr Kleeman are currently looking at ways in which additional funds could be found. The University advised that it did not wisht to cut into academic programs in order to find additional monies, and that the University will be looking at cutting into areas such as the master plan and beautification programs. The University advised however that the University will not cut into areas in which the University had a legal requirement to fix or maintain. The NTEU advised that the union would need to do some serious reflecting on the statements made by the University. The NTEU advised that it would take this information back to a general meeting of members, however, the union stressed to the University that it should be expected that there will be a very angry response from the members. The NTEU questioned the University on how matters would progress from here. The University advised that it would be re-looking at the finances of the University, the conditions agreed to so far, and that a new proposal would be made by the University as soon as possible. The NTEU questioned what the University meant by an increase in efficiencies. The University advised that to pay higher salary increases, additional monies need to be generated or saved. The University questioned whether the NTEU would be willing to put the bargaining procedd on hold to see what happens at other institutions. The NTEU advised that the Union already has agreements at a number of institutions, but to stop bargaining now would require the University to pay an administrative increase. The NTEU stressed again to the University that it felt there would be an agry response from its members on this stance by the Univeristy. The University questioned the NTEU on whether its members and staff really understood the impact a salary increase over 7% would have on the University. The NTEU advised that their members were not fools and were well aware of the impact and the possible redundancies which may occur. The University advised that it will as a matter of priority provide back response to Ian Eddies discussion paper and that the University will also provide evidence of the impact of 7%, 8%, 9%, and 10% from which further discussions can take place. The University advised that the next meeting should be held once the University has completed a review of the current EB issues. Adjourn the meeting at 3:00pm.

Maintained by Industrial Relations & Workplace Change. © 1999 University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351. Last revised: 9 October 2000 Email:rwood@metz.une.edu.au